Selma Auto Mall II v. Appellate Department
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
THAXTER, J.
In the published portion of this opinion we decide that ordering an appellant, as a condition to staying enforcement of a writ of possession pending appeal, to guarantee payment of attorney fees awarded against other, nonappealing parties is an abuse of discretion. In the unpublished portion we conclude that the appellate department of respondent Fresno County Superior Court acted in excess of jurisdiction when it purported to make postremittitur orders concerning an appeal bond. Jurisdiction lies solely in the trial court. We will grant appropriate writ relief.
Facts and…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Denham v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Chia-Lee Hsu v. AbbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Trope v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Spreckels Sugar Co. v. Indus. Accident Comm'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Mendoza v. Small Claims Court of Los Angeles Judicial DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Thompson Pacific Construction Inc. v. City of SunnyvaleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- In re StierCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Carr Business Enterprises, Inc. v. City of ChowchillaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Emerson Electric Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- 311 SOUTH SPRING STREET CO. v. Department of General ServicesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.